(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Sorry, this doesn't cut it, at all. There is no way Mohamed could have possibly known the origins and historical development of Yahweh from the Sumerian myth systems, (the 70th son of El Elyon), as this was not known to archaeology until the 1850's, when the ancient sites were found, (Nineveh/Ashurbanipal). Mohamed just stated, in total ignorance, that they were the same god, without an ounce of knowledge of what he was asserting.

First of all, dear Bucky, Muhammad didn't have to know about the origins and the historical development of Yahweh because Yahweh was not the original god of the Jews in the first place (according to later historical research). Yahweh originated from Sumerian belief system and thus it was not a monotheistic god. And you have already acknowledged that this is true, right? Secondly, as I said in my refutation of your post, the Arab Jews and Christians of that time (and even today) used to say "Allah" for God. And "Allah" simply means "God" in the Arabic language. So, Muhammad doesn't have to know anything about Yahweh because Yahweh was not the god of the Jews, but came from a different religion. And the Hebrew word for God is "Elah," and in Biblical Aramaic, it is "Alaha," and this was known to Muhammad just by what he heard from the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians of his time.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Yahweh Sabaoth was the god of the armies, (Lord of Hosts), and did not become "THE" monotheistic god of the Hebrews until around 500-600 BCE, when King Josiah and 2nd Isaiah insisted they stop worshiping their other gods. Mohamed had NO way of knowing that, as it was discovered in modern times.

I don't disagree with any of that. Yes, we know that Yahweh was a bedouin war god that originated from the deserts of Edom and from the surrounding regions. A longer name for Yahweh is "Yahweh Sabaoth" which is found in the Bible and translated as "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of Armies" and this would suggest that Yahweh was first and foremost a warrior God.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Show us the money. Where EXACTLY, and how does the archaeology refute the moon-god theory?

I don't have to show you any "archaeology" at all to refute the moon-god theory because you didn't provide a single evidence nor a sound argument that Allah was a moon god in the first place. You merely asserted that Allah was a moon god, but I didn't see anything in your post that specifically demonstrate that Allah was a moon god. No archaeological proofs and no historical proofs either. As I told you earlier, the moon god theory was invented by a Christian polemicist named Robert Morey and there is a long and thorough refutation of his moon good arguments in this article. I also mentioned several verses from the Quran which irrefutably disprove the idea that Muslims believe in a moon god. If you want to bring to the table any particular arguments and/or historical sources to support the idea that Allah was a moon god, then I'm all ears. I'll see if you can come up with anything.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The Qur'an is a faith text, and is worthless, in terms of "history". It refutes nothing.

The Quran is a faith text indeed, and yes, it is certainly not a history book as you mentioned, but a religious book. We believe that it does contain many stories and events which occurred in certain nations and to certain people who lived before the time that history can record (or before the time of Muhammad), but, again, the details and historical verses in the Quran are not the most important thing for Muslims. The most important thing, are the spiritual elements of the Quran and the fact that the Quran calls all human beings to bring themselves closer to the one God who is the source of everything. The fundamental theme of the Quran is monotheism - or tawhid - which is derived from the Arabic term for "one." Tawhid entails first of all that there is only one God. And it conveys the rich complexity and power of the Quran’s insistence on the oneness of God.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Mohamed cooked it up, just as Christians cooked up the gospels.

Well, the first thing you have to remember is that Muhammad was illiterate. So, how do you think that an illiterate person could come up with such a rich, poetic, and inspiring text that transformed the entire Arabia and many other parts of the world in such a short amount of time? At a number of stages during the 23-year period, challenges to reproduce, even a chapter of the Quran, were made. God says in the Quran, "And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed to Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a Surah the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if you are truthful" (2:23). Even the most learned and eloquent poets of his time have taken up this challenge, but they failed, and they failed miserably. Even today, no one has met that challenge even though they were literate and educated unlike the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This is not a proof that Muhammad certainly didn't write the Quran, but a very strong argument, in my opinion.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Show me ONE place Jews used the term "Allah".

Well, if you ask any Arabic speaking Jew how they would say God in their own language, they will say Allah. In other words, what I'm saying is that the word "God" to a Jew who is Arab is "Allah" in his own language. They say Allah when referring to God. Even before Islam was revealed, Arab Christians and Arab Jews used the name "Allah" instead of "God" or "Yahweh." Allah is just the Arabic word for God and has been so long before the existence of Islam. The names "Allah" and "God" are generally interchangeable within the Muslim religion and in Middle Eastern cultures. Now, since you asked me to show you one place where Jews used the term Allah, here are 3 videos that show them saying the word Allah and even admitting that Allah is the same god that they worship in their own religion, and a fourth one that shows a Dutch Bishop who uses the term Allah as well. So, take a look below:

I agree, but that is irrelevant to our main discussion because we're not talking Javeh. We were talking about Allah and the Judaic names for God as well as their historical and lexical origins. And I didn't mention the god Javeh anywhere in my reply to you. So, your statement that this is not "helping" my argument at all is not applicable to me in the first place. And, secondly, I don't see how Javeh being the Edomite mountain god refutes anything that I said about Allah nor about the word's etymological relation to the Hebrew words "Elah" and "Alaha" (which all translate to the word "God"). I'm sorry, Bucky Ball, maybe you're trying to pull the wool over my eyes, but it's not going to work. I have a good memory and I can usually tell when someone tries to divert the topic to something which I'm not even arguing against.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: As far as "condemning" the same god...you're damn right it does. That what I said. If Yahweh is a crock, so is Allah.

But, I didn't say Yahweh is Allah. My point was simply that Allah is the same god for both Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. So, when a Jew or a Christian condemns Allah or makes a negative remark about Allah, they are actually condemning the same god because all three religions are the Abrahamic religions and thus they have the same origins. They may call God by different names, but He is still one and the same. I have strenuously explained to you that the Arabic word for God, Allah, predates Islam, and was being used by Arab Jews and Christians as the name of God prior to Islam, and is clearly referring to the same Abrahamic God of the Jews and Christians.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: We know exactly where and when Yahweh came from.

I agree. Initially,Yahweh was one of the storm and war gods amongst the gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, and others. The roles of Yahweh were primarily attached to the cultural and social limitations of that particular time. The elaboration of ideas about Yahweh, such as a guarantor of fertility, good fortune, head of a pantheon, creator of the world, judge of the world, and so on, was a gradual process that came along afterwards in connection with certain social and/or historical changes. In other words, Yahweh started out as a storm and war god, and only later acquired other functions now commonly associated with Yahweh, such as the ability to create, for example.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I could care less what a Yemeni Jew says. He's as deluded as you are.

Well, maybe you don't care, but that doesn't that mean that he was wrong in what he said about Allah. In his video, he showed us a clear lexical evidence that "Allah" is indeed the Arabic cognate of the Hebrew and Aramaic words for god. In the Hebrew language, the word for god is "Elah" and in the Aramaic language, it is "Alaha." Since Arabic is a sister language of the two languages, Allah is etymologically the Arabic translation of the two. Now, see the explanation below for a proof.

Etymology of the term Allah:The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʾilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos). Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but functional singular) Elohim. The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā אֱלָהָא in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God." - Wikipedia

On a related not, the word "God" does not actually appear in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible, accepted as holy by both Christians and Muslims. "God" is an old English word which developed from an Indo-European word meaning “that which is invoked,” which is also the ancestor of the German word Gott (meaning: God).

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: If the answer is "no" why did you lie to me about the historical and archaeological evidence?

No, what I simply said was that I don't know of any physical and/or scientific evidence for my beliefs (in response to Atothetheist's question). That has nothing to do with my response to you when I was refuting your claim that there are historical and archaeological evidence that Allah is a moon god (which you haven't proven to me yet, by the way). And I've shown that this whole moon-good theory is just an anti-Muslim propaganda that was fabricated by a Christian polemicist named Robert Morey, only to be shamefully and miserably proven by Muslims that he was a liar. So, the point is that the quote you just replied to is dealing with the question of empirical evidence for Islam (which I don't have any), and the "historical" and "archaeological" evidence in question are only in reference to your own comments about the moon god theory. You were the one who said that there are historical and archaeological evidence that Allah is a moon god, not me.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The Qur'an proves nothing. A human being wrote every word in it, and then claimed it had a divine origin.

That's possible, but I think that's very unlikely, because I find it extremely counterintuitive to claim that Muhammad wrote the entire Quran especially knowing the fact that he was an illiterate man who lived in the deserts of Arabia in the 7th century and received no education from any teachers at all. This brings us to the unanswered and inevitable questions: What kind of sources did Muhammad use to write the Quran? How is it possible that no one during his time were able to prove that he was plagiarizing and/or being taught by someone (if that is the case)? How can he have the knowledge of all the science, astronomy, the stars, the earth, the moon, oceanography, and so many other things contained in the Quran? Was he just guessing luckily getting everything correct?

Another amazing thing about the Quran is it's deep content and literary eloquence that has mystified even the greatest Arab poets of the past and future since it's revelation. The incredible power and beauty of the speech contained in the Quran defies all reasonable explanations in regards to how a single man could produce such a speech out of his own mind. Here's a short clip of an interview where a professor of Arabic at Nassau Community College, Nouman Ali Khan, beautifully explains such an amazing aspect of the Quran and why it is unlikely that Muhammad wrote the Quran. It's only six minutes and I recommend that you watch it, please.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: No "scripture" can claim any "authority", unless you can PROVE it did not have human origins. You can't.

Yes, I can't prove with a 100% certainty that the scripture didn't have human origins. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no good reason to think so either. See my comments above where I explained the reasons I believe that the Quran has a divine origin. Again, those who have studied the unique style of the Quran and have a good knowledge of Arabic will not be able to explain how an illiterate man could write a book which is practically untouchable in terms of its poetic eloquence and beauty.

(10-09-2012 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You believe because you want to believe, the ULTIMATE circular thinking. You say you believe because the Qur'an tell you something. Why do you believe the Qur'an tells you the truth? Because you say you believe in it. So you believe because you believe. Real smart there dude, real smart.

I never said anywhere that I believe in the Quran just because it tells me to believe. I know that is circular thinking, and I'm not stupid enough to delude myself with such a circular thinking. I've already explained my reasons for believing in the Quran in this post as well as in this post just a page ago. I've explained it in other several other posts as well. But, nowhere did I say that I believe simply because I believe or that I believe because the Quran tells me to believe. That was never my reasoning for believing in the Quran. I have stated my reasons in the comments above.

Secondly, there are no such verses in the Quran that tell us to hate Jews, Christians, Hindus, nor any other religious groups. It doesn't tell us hate infidels either. The verses in the Quran which reprimand the Jews are only referring to certain transgressions that the Jews have made in the past in regards to their own religion, and the verses do not apply to all Jews. There are many verses about Jews, but a lot of them are referring to events that already took place even before the time of Islam and therefore those specific verses have a historical context behind them.

Also, during the rapid spread of Islam in the 7th century, the Prophet Muhammad allowed all religions to coexist in Muslim communities and no one was forced to convert to Islam. During that time, there were many examples of Christians and Jews flourishing under Islamic rule without being forced to live as Muslims. You can learn more about this in a book titled "The Jews of Islam," by Bernard Lewis, which a posted to a link to earlier as well.

(08-09-2012 09:19 PM)Diablo666 Wrote: Do you think the entire middle east is stuck in the middle ages? And if so, cuz it is, do you think Islam to blame for this?

No, I don't blame Islam for the problems in Middle East. What happens in a Muslim country are not necessarily always a representation of Islam itself. I think that the violence and problems in the Middle East are generally caused because of political tensions over US involvement, Israel and Palestine, and certain terrorist groups that simply try to gain more power and control over others. The causes for the problems some of the Middle Eastern regimes are mainly due things such as the failure to widen the arena of their political participation, their inability to improve the socio-economic conditions of the masses, adding to this the US global strategy to fight terror and spread "democracy" and subsequently the invasion of Iraq, as well as the failure to reconcile the Palestinian issue, which all contributed to the sudden precipitation of violence in the Middle East.

The things that I mentioned above are all political and socio-economic circumstances that led to such a meltdown. So, Islam is not the main cause. On the contrary, Islam is against violence and things such as suicide bombings and terrorism are clearly denounced according to the Quranic teachings and I explained this in more detail in my original post in this thread.

To my knowledge, there are no scriptural statements which specifically say that sex changes are forbidden in Islam. From a fiqh perspective, however, scholars have deduced that sex changes are unlawful in Islam based on a verse in the Quran which says that Satan will command some people to do stupid things like slit the ears of cattle and thereby "change the creation of Allah" (Surah 4:119). So, even though the verse is not talking about sex change specifically, it is inferred from that verse that someone undergoing a sex change operation when it is not really beneficial for that person is something haram (or unlawful) according to that particular verse.

However, there are certainly instances in which it is permissible to alter God's creation, and that is when the changes are intended for a good reason, to correct an abnormality or an impairment somewhere in the body, or even for certain health benefits. Those are the circumstances in which we are allowed to change our bodies through surgical operations. Likewise, in the case of sex change, that is only allowed if one is in a state where it is medically recommendable to undergo a sex change operation and such an exception may also apply to hermaphrodites, for example, who are people born with both male and female sex organs.

I talked about Islam's position on sex change operation, transgenders, and intersex people in more length in this post (in repose to Lilith Pride). And here's a link to a very detailed and comprehensive paper that explains many of the different scholarly opinions on the issue of sexual re-assignment one by one as well as the reasoning for the rulings behind each of them:

(11-09-2012 10:52 PM)hawkeyecf Wrote: Why are the Islamic people so pissy about drawing of Muhammad? :/

(Some guy in California made a movie featuring him and muslims stormed the Libian and Egyption U.S. Emmbassies killing a diplomat and burning stuff. I mean, wtf.)

I agree that many Muslims are indeed pissy about drawings of Muhammad or any other kind of mockery of him. However, also remember that not all the Muslims behave the same way obviously. There are many other Muslims who are going on with their lives and minding their own day-to-day activities just like most of the regular human beings. They don't really care about all the funny cartoons of Muhammad or who made a film about him or whatnot. I don't care about these things either because I know that I truly love the Prophet (peace be upon him), and I know his character to be amazing, and I understand what is Islam and how much patience and tolerance it teaches us, and that's why I don't feel hurt at all by such people who mock or insult the Prophet.

As for the Muslim reaction in Libya, I think that was definitely wrong and useless in every aspect, and even quite embarrassing, in my opinion. I mean, getting angry and performing angry and violent acts are two different things. There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. I don't understand how Muslims get so angered by such amateur, poorly-made films that they would resort to killing, let alone killing people who had nothing to do with the offensive piece. If you're offended by something, then simply correct the person's claims.

A lot of Muslims should learn how to respect other people's freedom of speech. If you don't like the film, just write an article explaining what you didn't like about it. Submit it to a widely-trafficked site and that way you can reach a wide audience who are interested in what you have to say. But, don't go killing people, especially those who had nothing to do with it. That doesn't accomplish anything other than causing innocent people unimaginable pain and at the same time justifying people's claims that Muslims are a bunch of unreasonable, violent savages. No doubt this will only lead to more violence in Libya and more hatred toward the Muslims.

Now, that being said, I have recently read that the entire film was a set up. The producer was just a troll and a liar because he deceived all the cast and crew members into thinking that the film had nothing to do with Islam nor Muhammad. In other words, the actors who appeared in the film had no idea that they were starring in an anti-Islam propaganda which was planned in such a way as to depict the Prophet Muhammad as a child molester and thug. Cindy Lee Garcia, one of the actors who had a small role in the "Muhammad" movie, said:

Quote:"It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago," Garcia said. "It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything."

In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product, now called Muslim Innocence. Muhammed wasn't even called Muhammed; he was "Master George," Garcia said. The word "Muhammed" was dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed.

Quote:"The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose," the statement says. "We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."

In fact, I don't think there is scientific/empirical evidence for any religion. If I knew of any, then I could just easily post the evidence in this thread and then I wouldn't even have to debate and explain all these other things that I've been talking about.

(13-09-2012 03:02 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote: I don't have to show you any "archaeology" at all to refute the moon-god theory because you didn't provide a single evidence nor a sound argument that Allah was a moon god in the first place. You merely asserted that Allah was a moon god, but I didn't see anything in your post that specifically demonstrate that Allah was a moon god. No archaeological proofs and no historical proofs either. As I told you earlier, the moon god theory was invented by a Christian polemicist named Robert Morey and there is a long and thorough refutation of his moon good arguments in this article. I also mentioned several verses from the Quran which irrefutably disprove the idea that Muslims believe in a moon god. If you want to bring to the table any particular arguments and/or historical sources to support the idea that Allah was a moon god, then I'm all ears. I'll see if you can come up with anything.

Unfortunately there are mountains of evidence for the moon god theory, which FAR predate the Morey article, from the 1990's. Since you already told us that there is no evidence for any religion, there really is no point discussing anything with you, as we agree 100%. You choose (to leap, irrationally to) a faith position. I do not. Robert Morey was insane. He wanted Mecca bombed, with a nuclear bomb. He advocated terrorism, while maintaining he was a "Christian pastor". How quaint. He was no scholar. The scholarship concerning the prevalence and worship of the Sin god in Arabia did not revolve in any way around him, or anything he said. He is an embarrassment to himself, Christianity, and humanity. Please see below.

Originally, Allah had 3 daughters, and Muhammad commanded they be worshiped, and later said he had made a mistake. Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. ->http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-allahs-daughters.htm Later the Prophet rejected these, as work of the devil, (see the Satanic Verses).
Yahweh had no daughters. Sin had THE SAME 3 daughters. It is incontrovertible PROOF. SIN IS ALLAH.

Many stories in the Qur'an were "borrowed" from surrounding cultures, and well known circulating myths, and cultural historians know exactly where they came from :

1. Moses and the Fish, (came from Babylon/Ugarit/the El myths),
2. Solomon listening to the ants, common fairy tales, existing all over the Ancient Near East,
3. Jinns, (genies) working for Solomon, both common fairy tales, existing all over the Ancient Near East,
4. Mary in the temple, (stolen from one of the proto gospels),
5. Jesus talking in the crib, (from the known Proto Gospel after Jacob)
6. The Egyptian child stories, (from the Arab Child Gospel, and The Thomas' Child Gospel), both just made up fairy stories.
7. Jesus making birds from clay, (known source, .."The Child Gospel after Thomas vs 1-4),
8. Mary and the Palm, was taken from the Proto Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 20.
9. Mo's Night Journey to Heaven, taken from either the Hebrew Merebah, or the well known Gnostic "Enoc's Journey to Heaven", which is identical to to Ibn Ishaq’s story after Abu Said al-Chudri)
10. The Sleepers in the Cave, straight from the fairy story from Ephesus, (Mo got the dates wrong, but the story is right),
11. Alexander the Great, (Surah 18), (straight plagiarism), AND there was NO place in the world with enough iron blocks to close off a whole valley in 330 BC.
12. The myth about Ad. Straight from Arab folk tales.
13. Thamud – same as 12.
14. Median – copied from Arab folk tales.

There is no "unique" element in any scripture which is unknown, or original, or completely "other" from, or new, or contains prior "unknowns", from the culture in which it originates. It all flows organically. ALL the laws and proscriptions existed already in each culture, in some form, as did every major cultural theme. Nothing was "received" as unique as "revelation" from a god, which cannot be traced to prior, known cultural ideas, ALREADY in place, in that culture. THAT alone, is evidence for human origins, and any divine claim has a HUGE mountain to overcome. For example, the god Sin, the moon god, was the primary god, and the sun god was his consort, with the stars as the children, because that's what they look like to someone without a knowledge of distance, size, and composition. If, somehow, the reality of the STARS or galaxies as larger had been "revealed", then we'd have to stop and wonder. The moon looks biggest, the sun next, and the stars small. That's what the myth system was. But the fact is, there is nothing original about any "revelation". If Muhammad was actually illiterate, and he likely was, in terms of reading and writing, it really says nothing, as he could have dictated from oral traditions. We don't know all his sources, but, it had to come from somewhere, just as all of the Bible did. Surely you know of the historical kernels of truth in the "Satanic Verses" ? If Muhammad's companions could have memorized the work, entire, and complete, without error, there is no reason to think he could not have done the same from things he already knew about, (or are you saying he was LESS skilled than his companions ?) If the companions were able to be an "hafiz", (one who memorizes the Qur'an), then certainly your great prophet is up to memorizing the elements he used to assemble it.

I know you are not so stupid, as to not be able to know what is wrong with this : "But, I didn't say Yahweh is Allah. My point was simply that Allah is the same god for both Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. " ... If the god in Judaism is Allah, and Yahweh is the god in Judaism, they HAVE to be the SAME god. If Christianity asserts Yahweh IS God the Father, then Allah HAS to be that god, if the continuity claim is made. It is simply false. They are NOT the same concepts. Even if they have the same name, it does not mean they are same god. My aunt Catherine is not my sister Catherine.

Islam claims that in pre-Islamic times, the god they claim, and name as Allah, was the same god the Hebrew people worshiped, (Yahweh Sabaoth), and that they are the same god. In doing so, Islam lays claim to a "continuity" of revelation, and in general, it is a common assertion, (even though a misconception), that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all "Abrahamic" religions. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Christianity grew out of Judaism, and in fact, for many years, the followers of Yeshua ben Josef actually WERE Jews. Later the followers of the sub-sect of Judaism, called the "Way", (see Acts), came to be called Christians. However, even though the faith claim in and of Islam, (made by their Founder/Prophet Muhammad), that Allah is the same god as the Jewish/Hebrew god, Yahweh, archaeology from over the last 150 years has proven that to be a false claim.

This continuity claim arises from known historical patterns. When the political forces of Arabia, after Muhammad's death began the conquering and formation of the empire, originally they did not care about converting the conquered peoples in the sense that they tried to change their extant cultures, to Islam exactly. That is why there is no record of "discord" about religious matters in the conquered cultures. They just "named" the conquered chief god as Allah, and let it go at that, as long as the conquered culture worshiped only their original one god. The only thing they cared about, originally was strict monotheism, not what exact god it happened to be. They declared them ALL as manifestations of Allah. They just changed the name. It was a pattern. So in this pattern, they "named" Yahweh as Allah, not really knowing anything about what they were really doing, in the historical sense. They just did it by decree.

We know from two entirely separate lines of inquiry the claim that Yahweh, originally is the same as Allah, is false.

1. Yahweh Sabaoth came from the Sumerian myth system. He was originally one of the 70 sons of El Elyon, in the Enuma Elish, and was, in a polytheistic environment, selected as the "Elohim", (chief god among many), of the Hebrews, as they wanted a war god to assist them in battle. That is why he was called the "Lord of Hosts", (an assembled army, in battle array, and formation). The major archaeological discoveries which led to this understanding, were done at the ancient city of Nineveh, and the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal, in the 1850's. The city of Nineveh was the ancient capital of Assyria, in Northern Mesopotamia, which is modern day Iraq. Yahweh, in Ancient Sumer, or Sumeria, was NOT the Moon god, Sin. No archaeologist disputes that. They are two entirely separate deities, and have separate developmental histories.

There were two main library contents, in the mound site, at the archaeological discovery of Ancient Nineveh ... the North site, (Ashurbanipal) and the South site, (King Senn-acher-ib's library...BTW, note, name has the phonetic "senn" ... it was later changed to the name of the god "Sin"), which, over the course of excavation, were tragically jumbled, and mixed with each other. To this day, scholars are still trying to work out the mess. The contents of the excavations are now in the British Museum.

2. The point in common which Islam has with Judaism, in fact, is not Yahweh, historically, but another god in the Sumerian pantheon, called "Sin". The god Sin, had many iterations, and there are hundreds of archaeological confirmations of this fact. The god Sin was a moon god, and was, and still is, in it's present iteration, (Allah), associated with the symbol of the Crescent Moon. Sin is ubiquitous in parts of the Ancient Near East.

BTW, the word "sin" in the West came from the old English word from archery, which meant to "miss the mark".
The name of the god, and the Western concept are in no way related.
The name "Sin" translates to "Controller of the Night", (ie the moon).

Over and over, in Hebrew culture, they were instructed, in the Bible texts, to STOP their worship of the moon-god, which was a constant recurring "falling from grace" theme, and return to the sole worship of Yahweh. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (Deut 4:19;17:3; II Kings 21:3,5; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) This is PROOF that the god Sin, the moon-god, (and the god concept from which Allah developed), was NOT Yahweh. Sin is not Yahweh. So we're partway there. Now I just have to prove that Sin is Allah.

We know from archaeology, that camels were not domesticated until 1000 BCE, thus regular cultural exchange between Canaan, and Arabia did not occur before that, and reached it zenith, around 700 BCE. BOTH the worship of Sin, and the worship of Yahweh were flourishing LONG before that. They had diverged many centuries before. Yahweh was not worshiped in Arabia, (however, there are some who think some elements of the Southern Javeh god's characteristics may come from an Arabian rain god, which would make sense, as it's closer to Egypt, and the Moses traditions). Sin was worshiped all over the ancient Near East.

If what moon god "deniers" is true, then what would have to NOT have been true, is :
a. Yahweh would not have existed as a separate worshiped deity, (there are mountains of evidence for this, and his wife Ashera)
b. the Sin god would NOT have existed as a separate worshiped deity (there are mountains of evidence for this god, and his consort, the sun god),
c. Allah, as a separate worshiped deity, apart from Sin, AND Yahweh, would have also have to have NOT existed, (and there would have to be evidence for that),
d. there would need to be NO evidence that Allah was worshiped ALONGSIDE, and APART from Sin, as a separate worshiped deity, at least in one location.
(That is, there would have to be evidence that Sin existed at the same time and place, but separate from, Allah.)
That would be 3 different gods, if Allah is not Sin. (We know from the Bible, Yahweh is not Sin). There is evidence for only 2 gods, at any time and place. So where does that leave us ?
Unfortunately, "c" and "d" are not true. There are only two gods at any given time, and place, and they are identifiable, and not the same.
Sin turns into Allah, at the hands of Muhammad, which is perfectly reasonable, as he was born into a family which revered the moon god.
At this point, moon god deniers would have to prove that Allah did not come from Sin.

So where did the Sin god come from, and how do we know that Sin developed into, and actually was Allah ?

From the mountains of Turkey, in the North, to the banks of the Nile, in the South, archaeologists have uncovered proof that people in the Ancient Near East worshiped a moon god. As shown by Drs. Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshiped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Just owing simply to the amount of artifacts unearthed, the worship of Sin, was clearly the dominant cult in ancient Sumer. The cult of the Moon-god was also the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word "Suen", which was one of the names of the Moon god, and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-god. As Prof. D.T. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites". ("Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur", D.T. Pots et all).

The Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin, (and the stars were their daughters). For example, Ishtar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He was the Judge of men and gods. In the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a crescent moon in its forehead. In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period, (reflecting one of Sin's names).

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are in the British Museum. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950's a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest . The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god. As pointed out by Prof. Carlton S. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms". (Carleton S. Coon, Southern Arabia, Washington DC, Smithsonian, 1944, p.398)

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Dr. Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, William Foxwel Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. THIS IS INCONTROVERTIBLE proof, that Allah predated any possible connection with the Hebrew god Yahweh, and they could not possibly be the same deity. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon god. There is no doubt about that. This moon god bore absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the Yahweh god, and his wife, (Ahsera). They were simply two different deities. How do we know that ?

1. Archaeology and location. The cult of Yahweh flourished to the North and West, of the sites where the Sin was prevalent.The artifacts are different. The "consorts", (wives) are different. Sin had mythological children. Yahweh did not. They cannot be the same god.

2. Scholarly consensus.

"Allah is found ... in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643)

"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshiped, a supreme god called allah" (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Houtsma, Arnold, Basset, Hartman; Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1913, I:302)

"The name Allah goes back before Muhammed" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:41)

The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, I:326)

Scholar Henry Preserved Smith of Harvard University stated:
"Allah was already known by name to the Arabs" (The Bible and Islam: or, the Influence of the Old and New Testament on the Religion of Mohammed, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, p.102)

Dr. Kenneth Cragg, former editor of the prestigious scholarly journal Muslim World and an outstanding modern Western Islamic scholar, whose works were generally published by Oxford University, comments:
The name Allah is also evident in archaeological and literary remains of pre-Islamic Arabia" (The Call of the Minaret, New York: OUP, 1956, p.31)

Dr. W. Montgomery Watt, who was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Edinburgh University and Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies at College de France, Georgetown University, and the University of Toronto, has done extensive work on the pre-Islamic concept of Allah. He concludes:
"In recent years I have become increasingly convinced that for an adequate understanding of the career of Muhammad and the origins of Islam great importance must be attached to the existence in Mecca of belief in Allah as a "high god". In a sense this is a form of paganism, but it is so different from paganism as commonly understood that it deserves separate treatment" (Mohammad's Mecca, p.vii. See also his article, "Belief in a High God in pre-Islamic Mecca", Journal of Scientific Semitic Studies, vol.16, 1971, pp.35-40)

Caesar Farah in his book on Islam concludes his discussion of the pre-Islamic meaning of Allah by saying:
"There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews" (Islam: Beliefs and Observations, New York: Barrons, 1987, p.28)

According to Middle East scholar E.M.Wherry, whose translation of the Qur'an is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal, were both astral religions in that they involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1973, p.36).
"In ancient Arabia, the sun-god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah (op.cit., Islam, p.7)
"The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to the other titles that could be given to him.
"Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called 'the daughters of Allah'. These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
"The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities" (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1977, pp.50-51).

The Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend records:
"Along with Allah, however, they worshiped a host of lesser gods and "daughters of Allah" (op.cit., I:61).

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "'Allah' is a pre-Islamic name ... corresponding to the Babylonian Bel" (ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1908, I:326).

It is a well known fact archaeologically speaking that the crescent moon was the symbol of worship of the moon god both in Arabia and throughout the Middle East in pre-Islamic times. Archaeologists have excavated numerous statues and hieroglyphic inscriptions in which a crescent moon was seated on the top of the head of the deity to symbolize the worship of the moon-god. Interestingly, whilst the moon was generally worshiped as a female deity in the Ancient Near East, the Arabs viewed it as a male deity.

In Mesopotamia the Sumerian god Nanna, named Sîn by the Akkadians, was worshiped in particular in Ur, where he was the chief god of the city, and also in the city of Harran in Syria, which had close religious links with Ur. The Ugaritic texts have shown that there a moon deity was worshiped under the name yrh. On the monuments the god is represented by the symbol of the crescent moon. At Hazor in Palestine a small Canaanite shrine of the late Bronze Age was discovered which contained a basalt stele depicting two hands lifted as if in prayer to a crescent moon, indicating that the shrine was dedicated to the moon god.

The worship of stellar deities, instead of Yahweh, was always a temptation faced by the Israelites (Dt.4:19; Jer.7:18; Am.5:26; Ac.7:43). But Yahweh is at the zenith of the heavens (Job 22:12).

"The Quraysh tribe into which Mohammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon god, and especially to Allah's three daughters who were viewed as intercessors between the people and Allah.

"The worship of the three goddesses, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, played a significant rôle in the worship at the Kabah in Mecca. The first two daughters of Allah had names which were feminine forms of Allah."The literal Arabic name of Muhammad's father was Abd-Allah. His uncle's name was Obied-Allah. These names reveal the personal devotion that Muhammad's pagan family had to the worship of Allah, the moon god" ( Morey, p.51).

History proves conclusively that before Islam came into existence, the Sabbeans in Arabia worshiped the moon-god Allah who was married to the sun-goddess. We have also seen that it was a matter of common practice to use the name of the moon-god in personal names in Muhammad's tribe. That Allah was a pagan deity in pre-Islamic times is incontestable. And so we must ask ourselves the question: why was Muhammad's God named after a pagan deity in his own tribe?

It is an undeniable fact that an Allah idol was set up at the Kabah along with all the other idols of the time. The pagans prayed towards Mecca and the Kabah because that is where their gods were stationed. It made sense to them to face in the direction of their god and pray since that is where he was. Since the idol of their moon god, Allah, was at Mecca, they prayed towards Mecca.

As we have seen, and as is acknowledged amongst all scholars of Middle Eastern religious history, the worship of the moon-god extended far beyond Allah-worship in Arabia. The entire fertile crescent was involved in moon-worship. The data falls neatly in place and we are able therefore to understand, in part, the early success Islam had amongst Arab groups that had traditionally worshiped Allah, the moon-god. We can also understand that the use of the crescent moon as the symbol of Islam, and which appears on dozens of flags of Islamic nations in Asia and Africa, and surmounts minarets and mosque roofs, is a throwback to the days when Allah was worshiped as the moon-god in Mecca.

Nabonidus (555-539 BC), was the last king of Babylon, and he built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's "stellar religion" has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various forms" (Some scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sin-ai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc.) Mecca was built as a shrine for the Moon-god. This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, "The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha", that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple. An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This was confirmed by other well-known archeologists.

In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidah, that she had uncovered a temple of the moon-god in southern Arabia (see map above). The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than 21 inscriptions with the name Sîn were found in this temple (see above left). An idol which is probably the moon-god himself was also discovered (see above right). This was later confirmed by other well-known archaeologists (See Richard Le Baron Bower Jr. and Frank P. Albright, Archaeological Discoveries in South Arabia, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1958, p.78ff; Ray Cleveland, An Ancient South Arabian Necropolis, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1965; Nelson Gleuck, Deities and Dolphins, New York, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1965).

Worship of the Moon god continued in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad's day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Dr. Coon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names. The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."

The word "Allah" comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al is the definite article "the" and ilah is an Arabic word for "god", i.e. the god. We see immediately that (a) this is not a proper name but a generic name rather like the Hebrew El (which as we have seen was used of any deity; and (b) that Allah is not a foreign word (as it would have been if it had been borrowed from the Hebrew Bible) but a purely Arabic one. It would also be wrong to compare "Allah" with the Hebrew or Greek for God (El and Theos, respectively), because "Allah" is purely an Arabic term used exclusively in reference to an Arabic deity.

The Arabs worshiped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc. The Muslim's claim that Allah is Yahweh and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence, and even if true, in the extreme off chance that ALL the archaeology is wrong, then it's false anyway, as we know full well where Yahweh came from, and his mythological origns. Islam is nothing more than an extension of an ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient religion of the Moon-god.

The first point of the Muslim creed is not, "Allah is great" but "Allah is the greatest," i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the "greatest" except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This "Allah" was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To his contemporaries, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their god too. Muhammad was born into a family that worship the moon god, and was steeped in that tradition. He did not break from it. He enhanced, and extended it.

There are other, more esoteric, fundamental philosophical differences, between Judaism and Islam, which leads one to conclude that the godheads are not similar. In Judaism, originally a moral evil, (in the Garden myth), was something which was *not-Chaos*, ie the opposite of Chaos, (which was a common theme in the Sumerian myth system). The evil in the Garden myth was "attempting to encompass opposites, (ie Choas), or "be like a god"... the ability to "encompass the opposites". . In Islam, the overriding concept of evil is non-submission. Period. Islam means to "submit", (to the will of Allah). They are very different concepts. Thus the "revelation" of one,is fundamentally different from the other, NOT a "continuity". At the "last judgement" is very different. Jesus thought it was immanent in his lifetime. By the time of Muhammad, he appropriated the later concepts, as he would have no way of knowing what Jesus actually taught about.

From the apparent beginning, "the book", ie the Qur'an is the central organizing factor in the religion of Islam. No "book" was the central organizing factor in either Judaism or Christianity. The OT bible texts were NOT assembled in to one book, until very late in their history, and it was simply not available, (5% or less literacy rates), or important to Jews,until an organizing force was needed post Exile, and post Diaspora. Christianity preached the "good news", (according to St. Paul), but at the time he said that there were no gospel texts yet, and no organized collections of them, until much later. As we see in the Donner video, the "believers" or "believing community" is very similar to the early communities of Christians, ie believers who wrote their texts for their worship, (ie the gospels).

It is interesting, the general atmosphere that exists in the world today, with respect to any questioning of the tenets of Islam. At some level, obviously, Fundamentalists must perceive how insane their positions are, and thus are reflexively defensive. It was the same in the Medieval period for the Judean/Christian religions also. When the Bible was first discovered to contain errors, and contradictions there began a long history of cover-up, and persecution of scholars. Someone noticed in the 11th Century that the list of Edomite Kings, in Genesis actually lived and died after Moses, and he could not have possibly written the Pentateuch. This man was Isaac ibn Yashush. He was labeled Isaac the Blunderer, (much as Ehrman was labeled by Craig). He however proved to be right, and after saying his book should be burned, his labelor eventually said "And he who understands will keep silent". Eventually, however, truth did out, just as it will eventually, about the texts and claims in Islam.

Another interesting historical fact, is that during the early development of Islam, it seems, ((see the Donner, (U of Chicago) video)), that actual belief in the Qur'an was not the central organizing fact of his communities, but only, simply, monotheism. Jews and Christians were also members of "the believers". It's not until later, that the Califs
required organization around Islam, as an exclusive, and exclusionary boundary for a community.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph

THE most important element of the faith, and Muhammad's central addition to his culture, was absolute monotheism. This idea had already arisen in human ideas, in Egypt, with Akhenaten, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten , (but was suppressed), and had a long history of development in Hebrew culture, but much of the Hebrew development was politically motivated, and we know that historical process, and was more monolaterist polytheism. Hebrew culture, and Christianity by the time of Muhammad, were also monotheistic.

Why is all this unknown, for the most part ? It's because, as Dr. Ehrman said in his video discussion forgery in the New Testament, when someone asked him why he didn't do a book on the Qur'an, he said "ya well when I stop valuing my life, maybe I'll work on that".

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(09-09-2012 05:55 AM)Vosur Wrote: Then why is it that you base your entire life on a belief for which you have no evidence at all?

Well, a belief does not necessarily require evidence, and what is "evidence" to one person may not be evidence to another person because I think that there are different degrees of evidence and it can be subjective sometimes. For example, evidence can mean something like "absolute verification of something, impossible to deny." or it can also mean "persuasive evidence (i.e. by means of rational arguments) though not necessarily infallible" If you use the word evidence in the former sense, then no, I don't have any evidence my beliefs. If you the word evidence in the latter sense, then yes, I have evidence for my beliefs and I've discussed them many times in this thread so far. But, you may not accept them as evidence at all because it is an internal or a subjective type of evidence. It's not something that you can see or touch right in front of you.

Going back to the original sources and time period in history when Islam was revealed, I learned that it presents a very simple concept: That there is only one God who is the source of everything and that He has created mankind as His representatives on earth for the purpose of growing through learning and experience into righteous individuals, and to assist mankind is achieving this goal, there are the messengers and scriptures revealed to us which all command us to submit to the will of God. That is the fundamental theme of the Quran. And this is something that I find to be very consistent, rational, and meaningful in my life.

A belief in god does not necessitate a belief in the Quran. Or the Bible. Or any other book.

Another person's internal mental state is never considered evidence by any rational person.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but you may not require anyone else to believe it. Not even your children.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(13-09-2012 03:02 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote: How can he have the knowledge of all the science, astronomy, the stars, the earth, the moon, oceanography, and so many other things contained in the Quran? Was he just guessing luckily getting everything correct?

Care to elaborate on how the Qu'ran contains any (scientific) knowledge that Muhammad couldn't have had at the time?

Oh, and please don't force me to remind you what an unbiased source is.

Well the arabs were world leaders in astronomy, medicine and trading before islam set them back 100 years.

"While religions tell us next to nothing useful or true about the universe, they do tell us an enormous amount - perhaps an embarrassing amount - about ourselves, about what we value, fear and lust after." Iain M Banks